John0123 wrote:...It's "deja vu all over again." We've been in this discussion before.

You're wrong in two different ways: First, we can be affected by the malfeasance of economic actors as big as the banksters without ever entering into a transaction with them at all, voluntarily or involuntarily. That input-output table I mentioned earlier proves that.

Second, unless one has "gone Galt" and lives in a cave, we are hard-pressed to avoid transactions with financial institutions simply because we need investments to survive, especially after we retire.

By input-output you mean someone wins, someone loses then I agree with that. But, how did Dimon affect me when I didn't engage in a transaction with Dimond? But, increases in government spending to makeup for waste, fraud and abuse does affect me since I pay the government to work on my behalf. I pay nothing to Dimond.

No, an input-output tables (AKA I-O models or I-O analyses) show the interdependencies of sectors and subsectors of an economy — regional, national, or international. If a large portion of a sector (let's say the banking sector) is misbehaving to the extent that it affects the output of that sector, that decrease in its output will affect and even blight those other sectors that depend on that output.

Thus, private-sector waste, fraud, and abuse affects the overall economy just as surely as governmental waste, fraud, and abuse. For example, if government officials were found to be flying first-class, that could be considered wasteful at the taxpayers expense. However, what about corporate officials flying first-class? Same thing. The additional cost of those tickets isn't paid by the tooth fairy. It comes primarily at the expense of corporate dividends to stockholders or is made up for by increased fees and prices paid by customers.

30 plus years ago when I worked at a ma and pa grocery, food stamps looked like Monopoly money with the smallest denomination being a $1 stamp. So early in the morning a dozen or so little kids would troop through the door and buy maybe a dime's worth of eligible candy to get the change and leave. Within the hour,various derelict types would show up to buy single cans of beer with loose change. It wasn't hard to figure that one out and this was in 1980. Fast forward to 2012; it's a debit card now. They card holder gets someone to give them $20 in cash and in exchange the person giving them cash can use the card to get $25 or $30 in groceries. Some things never change but they do get updated.

John0123 wrote:...It's "deja vu all over again." We've been in this discussion before.

You're wrong in two different ways: First, we can be affected by the malfeasance of economic actors as big as the banksters without ever entering into a transaction with them at all, voluntarily or involuntarily. That input-output table I mentioned earlier proves that.

Second, unless one has "gone Galt" and lives in a cave, we are hard-pressed to avoid transactions with financial institutions simply because we need investments to survive, especially after we retire.

By input-output you mean someone wins, someone loses then I agree with that. But, how did Dimon affect me when I didn't engage in a transaction with Dimond? But, increases in government spending to makeup for waste, fraud and abuse does affect me since I pay the government to work on my behalf. I pay nothing to Dimond.

No, an input-output tables (AKA I-O models or I-O analyses) show the interdependencies of sectors and subsectors of an economy — regional, national, or international. If a large portion of a sector (let's say the banking sector) is misbehaving to the extent that it affects the output of that sector, that decrease in its output will affect and even blight those other sectors that depend on that output.

Thus, private-sector waste, fraud, and abuse affects the overall economy just as surely as governmental waste, fraud, and abuse. For example, if government officials were found to be flying first-class, that could be considered wasteful at the taxpayers expense. However, what about corporate officials flying first-class? Same thing. The additional cost of those tickets isn't paid by the tooth fairy. It comes primarily at the expense of corporate dividends to stockholders or is made up for by increased fees and prices paid by customers.

As I previously said, all bank and stock transactions by their customers are voluntary, government taxes are not.

"However, what about corporate officials flying first-class? Same thing. The additional cost of those tickets isn't paid by the tooth fairy. It comes primarily at the expense of corporate dividends to stockholders or is made up for by increased fees and prices paid by customers."

Oh no, coporations have money trees. NOT. All of the money squandered on meals at five star restaurants, luxury boxes at sporting events, courtside seats, corporate jets., etc. ad nauseum comes directly from the pockets of consumers. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is either naive or dishonest in the extreme.

hopewell wrote:Shortly after WW II the national poverty rate was (retroactively) calculated to be around 40%. By 1964, after fifteen years of massive economic expansion, the poverty rate had dropped to around 19%. Then the Great Society programs declared a War on Poverty.

Today, nearly fifty years and $15 trillion later, the poverty rate hovers at around 14%.

Policies supporting economic expansion are more effective at eliminating poverty than giving people money. When most jobs today require little physical labor and several can be done working at home, I do not think it unreasonable to require some hours of community service in return for receiving taxpayer money.

Figures don't lie, but liars can figure.

What you conveniently omit is the figure for population growth.

Adding that in, the decline in American poverty rates looks pretty good.

"...but a healthy pursuit of those engaging in fraud will reassure taxpayers."

Reassure taxpayers of what, Mr. Politician? Reassure us that the larger and more formidable government spending programs that the Obama administration has created are not filled with waste, fraud and abuse? You are delusional.

Why not just require a photo ID to use food stamps? From what I've seen, you can currently use them without an ID so some people cheat the system by selling their food stamps for drugs, sex, booze, etc. Just require a photo ID to use them.

If the name on your photo ID doesn't match the name on the card, you can't use them.

From what I understand, the reason they don't currently mandate an ID is because some elderly and disabled beneficiaries often have to send others to shop for them. Simple enough, just allow for multiple names. The card would have a printed form like this:

Owner: John DoeAdditional Designee(s): Jane Doe, Tom Doe

When you made a purchase, the clerk would ask for your ID and make sure it matches the one on the card. You couldn't self-checkout this way or you'd need the clerk to come over and okay it but that shouldn't be a huge problem.

If they're not already restricted, food stamps should also probably not be usable on liquor, cigarettes, very high priced food items (sushi, prime rib, caviar, organics, etc.), candy and soft drinks. (I include candy and soft drinks not because they're unhealthy but because they basically aren't food. They don't sustain you nor do they provide any nutritional benefits.) Food, pet food, possibly medicines and normal home supplies (detergent, soap, razors, etc.) seem like things worth supplementing but there need to be constraints.

Monsuco wrote:Why not just require a photo ID to use food stamps? From what I've seen, you can currently use them without an ID so some people cheat the system by selling their food stamps for drugs, sex, booze, etc. Just require a photo ID to use them.

If the name on your photo ID doesn't match the name on the card, you can't use them.

From what I understand, the reason they don't currently mandate an ID is because some elderly and disabled beneficiaries often have to send others to shop for them. Simple enough, just allow for multiple names. The card would have a printed form like this:

Owner: John DoeAdditional Designee(s): Jane Doe, Tom Doe

When you made a purchase, the clerk would ask for your ID and make sure it matches the one on the card. You couldn't self-checkout this way or you'd need the clerk to come over and okay it but that shouldn't be a huge problem.

If they're not already restricted, food stamps should also probably not be usable on liquor, cigarettes, very high priced food items (sushi, prime rib, caviar, organics, etc.), candy and soft drinks. (I include candy and soft drinks not because they're unhealthy but because they basically aren't food. They don't sustain you nor do they provide any nutritional benefits.) Food, pet food, possibly medicines and normal home supplies (detergent, soap, razors, etc.) seem like things worth supplementing but there need to be constraints.

I fear that I am going to sound a bit like a dyed in the wool libertarian with this response, but here goes:

Money is fungible.

Food stamps are meant to supplement income. So the effective intent is to push up income regardless of the stated goal of providing nutrition to the impoverished.

Individual choice I important regardless of you class or economic circumstances.

Along with individual choice comes individual responsibility for ones own actions.

Simply make the rules to use the card only in authorized food stores on items for personal consumption. Strip the rules to their basics and reduce the antifraud employees directed against the individual cardholders. It will reduce the cost of searching to detect waste and fraud if the restrictions on food stamps were loosened rather than tightened._______________________________________________________

For example – booze.

A food stamp recipient can convert the food stamp dollars to booze with an intermediary who will buy say $30 of food from the card holder (all legal) and then hand over $20 and take the bags of food in the parking lot (illegal, but clearly against the intent of the rules does not mean easy to prosecute).

By allowing the purchase of the booze, you will at least keep the $10 on the card. How he or she uses it is still problematic, but individuals that do not wish to be helped are not going to be helped. It is an individual responsibility issue. It might be that a less of a nanny state will still do well, but cost us less in the long run.

Focus the administrators on income qualifications and reduce the income to 100% of the poverty level and you will see a large decline in case load. You will also see less of the trickery since the truly impoverished are not as motivated to divert the funds to other uses unless they are an addict.

“I am a libertarian with a small 'l' and a Republican with a capital 'R'. And I am a Republican with a capital 'R' on grounds of expediency, not on principle.” ― Milton Friedman

This is just indicative of how stupid we Americans are. While I do not disagree that there is fraud in the food stamp program I am going to state that the money spent on this anti-fraud program would have greater impact if they went after Medicare/Medicaid fraud. The few cases of note (I believe there was one noted by the MSM last month even) garners the fraudsters not tens of dollars or even hundreds of dollars but in fact millions of dollars. Of course, it is much easier to target the poor or the working poor than to target those that are millionaires (or at least are now after their fraud).

SL10 wrote:Good to hear as I bet some of those "crooked stores" are certain shops in Colorado that sell certain herbs.

Numerous charges made in round numbers, for instance, could indicate someone is in cahoots with a crooked store, trading benefits for cash.

Where are you getting this information? The issue of Food Stamp fraud due to MMJ was not mentioned in the article at all.

You can't, under any circumstance, use a Food Stamp debt card in a MMJ dispensary. If you think that an intermittent could by the Food Stamp debt card and then allow the person to purchase something in a MMJ dispensary that assumption makes no sense.

Under the Food Stamp program a person with ZERO income will get a maximum of $200 per month. When you sign up for Food Stamps, and every month you meet with a Food Stamp representative (yes you have to physically meet with them every month), they check the State's tax revenue database to see if you have started a new job (just like unemployment does). They also check if you have a vehicle registered to you or at your address. If you have a vehicle worth an unusually large amount of money they are going to investigate why (they will check the Police Records to see if you have any tickets recently proving you drive the vehicle) and hold up your Food Stamps. They also check proof of citizenship but we all know how people can get around those efforts. What I am saying to getting Food Stamps is not as easy as you may believe.

Do you have any idea how expensive MMJ is? If the Food Stamp debit card is worth $200 (max), selling it would yield maybe $100 - $150. An ounce of MMJ cost from $150 to $300, depending on the quality. You would have to be incredibly dumb to use your food stamp money MMJ. It is more likely that the fraud (as the article states) would happen at a small convenience store that sells some food items and alcohol.

You seem to have a recurring theme about ending MMJ. That is fine, as it is your right to express your position on the matter. However, this article does not mention MMJ in anyway. I believe you are just trying to stir the pot to advance your personal agenda against MMJ.

SL10 wrote:Good to hear as I bet some of those "crooked stores" are certain shops in Colorado that sell certain herbs.

Numerous charges made in round numbers, for instance, could indicate someone is in cahoots with a crooked store, trading benefits for cash.

Where are you getting this information? The issue of Food Stamp fraud due to MMJ was not mentioned in the article at all.

You can't, under any circumstance, use a Food Stamp debt card in a MMJ dispensary. If you think that an intermittent could by the Food Stamp debt card and then allow the person to purchase something in a MMJ dispensary that assumption makes no sense.

Under the Food Stamp program a person with ZERO income will get a maximum of $200 per month. When you sign up for Food Stamps, and every month you meet with a Food Stamp representative (yes you have to physically meet with them every month), they check the State's tax revenue database to see if you have started a new job (just like unemployment does). They also check if you have a vehicle registered to you or at your address. If you have a vehicle worth an unusually large amount of money they are going to investigate why (they will check the Police Records to see if you have any tickets recently proving you drive the vehicle) and hold up your Food Stamps. They also check proof of citizenship but we all know how people can get around those efforts. What I am saying to getting Food Stamps is not as easy as you may believe.

Do you have any idea how expensive MMJ is? If the Food Stamp debit card is worth $200 (max), selling it would yield maybe $100 - $150. An ounce of MMJ cost from $150 to $300, depending on the quality. You would have to be incredibly dumb to use your food stamp money MMJ. It is more likely that the fraud (as the article states) would happen at a small convenience store that sells some food items and alcohol.

You seem to have a recurring theme about ending MMJ. That is fine, as it is your right to express your position on the matter. However, this article does not mention MMJ in anyway. I believe you are just trying to stir the pot to advance your personal agenda against MMJ.

With hidden cameras, we uncovered a black market of people offering to sell their food stamp benefits for cash, which is against the law.

With the cash they could buy whatever they want — perhaps alcohol, cigarettes or even drugs — things you can’t buy with food stamps, all coming from your money.

Lastly, some pot shops sell food with THC in it and technically "could" be certified for food stamp acceptance.

Plus, like I said before how are people going to buy pot without a job cause they can't pass a mandatory drug test?!?! This is one way on the taxpayers dime.

Last edited by SL10 on May 27th, 2012, 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

In 2008, ALL NINE justices of the Supreme Court agreed that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited and that government may regulate guns. Read on it. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf